Critical Mass Tunnel Freaks

[Zoot Katz]

Sun, 29 Jun 2003 19:05:44 -0400, <[email protected]>, "Eric S. Sande"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>>I was shaken. I stopped and asked, in a surprisingly composed manner,
>
>>"Lady, do you realise you almost just killed me?".
>
>>Her reply: "So what".
>
>You're a roadie in a city in daily operation, do you actually expect that things will be perfectly
>smooth and regulated.
>
At that point I was a novice obviously still wet behind the ears believing traffic regulations meant
something.
--
zk

 

[Zoot Katz]

Sun, 29 Jun 2003 23:19:18 GMT, <[email protected]>, cyclist101 <[email protected]> wrote:

>It's bad regardless who's breaking the law. The difference in the case I showed above is the people
>from CM got together specifically to break the law.

Such is the nature of civil disobedience. They were there to draw attention to the fact that
cyclists are entitled to the expectation that they too can safely use the roads and be afforded the
same protection under the law. It appears that they do not have the right to that expectation when
killers get off without so much as a traffic ticket. In the case you mentioned, the driver was cited
for a minor infraction while trying to kill or injure the cyclists.

>The guy in the Jeep just wanted to go home.

After he finished running down a few people in his path.
--
zk

 

[Cyclist101]

Buck wrote:
>> It's very much about safety when some moron gets so angry
>> because he's delay for a few minutes that he tries to kill people.
>
> I'm certain that the CM riders were innocently riding along. Oh wait, here's the perspective of
> the Honda driver:
<snip of letter to the editor>

Thanks for posting that letter. She wasn't the only driver that day who was ticked off and appalled
by the CM traffic terrorists. She only got caught in the middle of it because the guy ran into her.

> And here's another example of CM riders exhibiting exemplary behavior: "A group of bicyclists
> formed a circle around the officers, yelling and spitting at them, and then a man grabbed an
> officer´s radio and ran. Two officers chased and tackled the man, handcuffed him and took him to
> the police station. "
>
> I could spend all day quoting articles that demonstrate how CM participants are less than peaceful
> protestors. This is why I don't want them representing me.

I think Automator's reply about namecalling shows how peaceful their biggest supporters are. Wishing
harm upon others probably won't win him a Nobel Peace Prize, but I suspect he's not exactly in the
running anyway.

 

[Eric S. Sande]

>I've no problem with the agencies involved funding separate bike paths through the most traffic
>addled parts of the city. Most people in my city don't, either.

This is our basic disagreement. I'm totally against separate facilities, and I'll fight to the death
against them. As I see it bicycles belong on the road and deserve equal status as vehicles in law.

Any push to construct bicycle specific facilities is to ghettoize bicyclists and render us a
subclass with regard to the roads.

I can't accept that as a matter of public policy and I won't subscribe to it as a matter of local
policy no matter what.

--

_______________________ALL AMIGA IN MY MIND_______________________ ------------------"Buddy Holly,
the Texas Elvis"------------------
__________306.350.357.38>>[email protected]__________

 

[Buck]

"Zoot Katz" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:3f1d71fa.108358749@public-
> "Buck" <j u n k m a i l @ g a l a x y c o r p . c o m> wrote:
>
> >I could spend all day quoting articles that demonstrate how CM
participants
> >are less than peaceful protestors. This is why I don't want them representing me.
>
> Don't worry Buck, your name never comes up on our rides.

Glad to hear that. But CM antics reflect on cyclists as a whole. And since the effects of CM actions
impact a lot of people and are well publicized (but not in a positive manner), the negative image
that many motorists get from CM actions tends to spread. Before owning a Harley became vogue with
the baby-boomers, all motorcyclists were painted with the negative image generated by the actions of
motorcycling clubs like the Hell's Angels. Now we have all cyclists being painted with the negative
image being generated by CM participants. That is the issue here. And that's the image I don't want
applied to me.

-Buck

 

[Buck]

"Zoot Katz" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:3f1f768f.109532049@public-

> cyclist101 <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >It's bad regardless who's breaking the law. The difference in the case I showed above is the
> >people from CM got together specifically to break the law.
>
> Such is the nature of civil disobedience. They were there to draw attention to the fact that
> cyclists are entitled to the expectation that they too can safely use the roads and be afforded
> the same protection under the law. It appears that they do not have the right to that expectation
> when killers get off without so much as a traffic ticket. In the case you mentioned, the driver
> was cited for a minor infraction while trying to kill or injure the cyclists.

They were illegally blocking an intersection, then chased down the guy and illegally blocked him in
again. Who knows what words, threats or bodily fluids were exchanged. Even the driver of the car
that was hit was sympathetic to the Jeep driver's plight. Notice that the cyclists slashed at least
one of his tires? Now we have armed cyclists participating in a "peaceable" demonstration.

I have posted excerpts on the opposing points of view in another part of this thread.

-Buck

 

[David Sutton]

> Didnt critical mass provide press releases conveying what the group were going to do and wasn't
> the organisations aim to disrupt peak hour traffic through one of the main east exits from the
> city. Surely the RADIO JOCKS comments and reaction was what was expected by the Critical Mass. The
> abuse that followed is surely a result of the organisations actions.

The only press releases put out were from the Police & CityLink. Critical Mass NEVER puts out press
releases. Not this time nor any time in the past. Where did you get this info from?

>> The Age "VicRoads traffic controllers said the event did not seem to have caused congestion in
>> other parts of the city"
> Sure our roads infrastructure handled this sought of traffic before the tunnels were built. But
> your missing the point. Critical Mass's aim was to inconvienience drivers, who yes were fired up
> by the media, who were fueled by the CM press releases. Who then took it out on us.

The aim was to demonstrate in favour of sustainable transport, and to show how much fun bikes can
be. And there were no press releases (see above).

>> "After police drove through the closed tunnel at 6.30pm, the first five cyclists entered from
>> Power Street at 6.35pm. The rest entered from Kings Way two minutes later. The tunnel was
>> reopened at 7.15pm."
>>
>>
>> So, far from the projected chaos on the roads, the resulting effect on traffic caused barely a
>> ripple, according to the authorities. And the
> tunnel
>> was closed for a total of 45 minutes -- far from the 2 hours which the
> radio
>> jocks were screaming about.
> OK but there were only 430 riders riding 3 km. If the CM numbers that have been experienced in
> other parts of the had riden through the tunnel, traffic could have been held up for 2 hours

The largest ever CM ride in Melbourne was about 770 riders, so it would have been silly to expect
that there would be thousands flooding out of the woodwork last Friday (especially on a cold & maybe
rainy night). So the ride was never going to require more than 45mins of tunnel closure.

 

[Buck]

"Zoot Katz" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:3f165321.100460703@public-

> cyclist101 <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >It's not about safety when you tie up traffic and beat drivers.
>
> He tried running them over them with his car and so should be charged with assault with a deadly
> weapon. His intention was to hurt people. I wish he'd been stomped into puddle pureed meat..

Again, he went around them at one intersection, they followed him to another and escalated the
altercation. At least one stood in front of the Jeep while others approached him from the sides.
Four against one. At least one with a knife. Yeah, they were just innocent CMers demonstrating for
their right to the roadway. Hard to believe.....

-Buck

 

[Zoot Katz]

Mon, 30 Jun 2003 00:03:23 GMT,
<[email protected]>, "Buck" <j u n k m a i l @ g a l a x y c o r p . c
o m> wrote:

>"Zoot Katz" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:3f1d71fa.108358749@public-
>> "Buck" <j u n k m a i l @ g a l a x y c o r p . c o m> wrote:
>>
>> >I could spend all day quoting articles that demonstrate how CM
>participants
>> >are less than peaceful protestors. This is why I don't want them representing me.
>>
>> Don't worry Buck, your name never comes up on our rides.
>
>Glad to hear that. But CM antics reflect on cyclists as a whole. And since the effects of CM
>actions impact a lot of people and are well publicized (but not in a positive manner), the negative
>image that many motorists get from CM actions tends to spread. Before owning a Harley became vogue
>with the baby-boomers, all motorcyclists were painted with the negative image generated by the
>actions of motorcycling clubs like the Hell's Angels. Now we have all cyclists being painted with
>the negative image being generated by CM participants. That is the issue here. And that's the image
>I don't want applied to me.
>
>-Buck
>
>
Then your issue is with the redneck media you consume, not cyclists. As was complained about in
another message, not all media paints CM in a negative light.

Think about how many more drivers have never seen a CM than the relatively few who feel
inconvenienced by the occasional bike ride.

The problem is with the oil slicked spin media puts on the story.
--
zk

 

[Zoot Katz]

Mon, 30 Jun 2003 00:09:45 GMT,
<[email protected]>, "Buck" <j u n k m a i l @ g a l a x y c o r p . c
o m> wrote:

> Now we have armed cyclists participating in a "peaceable" demonstration

You have armed drivers acting out their own traffic tantrums against each other every day while just
trying to navigate the cess pool they've created for themselves.

When they use their cars as weapons, they're scum and should be dealt with accordingly.
--
zk

 

[David Sutton]

How I love you Forresterites. I'm in Australia & even I laugh at your simplistic notion that
everything would be better if bikes were classified as vehicles.

Well, guess what? In every state of Aust, bikes do have the status of vehicles. And it doesn't make
an ounce of difference to the number of catcalls & "get off the roads" that we get.

Of course, bikes should be allowed on the road. But that one fact is not something to build such a
zealous cult around. Why do you guys bother?

> From: "Eric S. Sande" <[email protected]> Reply-To: [email protected] Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2003
> 20:14:00 -0400 Subject: Re: Critical Mass Tunnel Freaks
>
>> I've no problem with the agencies involved funding separate bike paths through the most traffic
>> addled parts of the city. Most people in my city don't, either.
>
> This is our basic disagreement. I'm totally against separate facilities, and I'll fight to the
> death against them. As I see it bicycles belong on the road and deserve equal status as
> vehicles in law.
>
> Any push to construct bicycle specific facilities is to ghettoize bicyclists and render us a
> subclass with regard to the roads.
>
> I can't accept that as a matter of public policy and I won't subscribe to it as a matter of local
> policy no matter what.

 

[Eric S. Sande]

>Of course, bikes should be allowed on the road. But that one fact is not something to build such a
>zealous cult around. Why do you guys bother?

Your problem, mate, is that you all ready surrendered.

It is still an issue in America.

--

_______________________ALL AMIGA IN MY MIND_______________________ ------------------"Buddy Holly,
the Texas Elvis"------------------
__________306.350.357.38>>[email protected]__________

 

[Sh]

Dont put out press releases??? What sought of protest organisation are you, you are relying on the
police and Vicroads to promote your ride?

"David Sutton" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:BB25C264.62A4%[email protected]...
> > Didnt critical mass provide press releases conveying what the group were going to do and wasn't
> > the organisations aim to disrupt peak hour
traffic
> > through one of the main east exits from the city. Surely the RADIO JOCKS comments and reaction
> > was what was expected by the Critical Mass. The
abuse
> > that followed is surely a result of the organisations actions.
>
> The only press releases put out were from the Police & CityLink. Critical Mass NEVER puts out
> press releases. Not this time nor any time in the
past.
> Where did you get this info from?
>
>
> >> The Age "VicRoads traffic controllers said the event did not seem to have
caused
> >> congestion in other parts of the city"
> > Sure our roads infrastructure handled this sought of traffic before the tunnels were built. But
> > your missing the point. Critical Mass's aim was
to
> > inconvienience drivers, who yes were fired up by the media, who were
fueled
> > by the CM press releases. Who then took it out on us.
>
> The aim was to demonstrate in favour of sustainable transport, and to show how much fun bikes can
> be. And there were no press releases (see above).
>
>
> >> "After police drove through the closed tunnel at 6.30pm, the first five cyclists entered from
> >> Power Street at 6.35pm. The rest entered from
Kings
> >> Way two minutes later. The tunnel was reopened at 7.15pm."
> >>
> >>
> >> So, far from the projected chaos on the roads, the resulting effect on traffic caused barely a
> >> ripple, according to the authorities. And the
> > tunnel
> >> was closed for a total of 45 minutes -- far from the 2 hours which the
> > radio
> >> jocks were screaming about.
> > OK but there were only 430 riders riding 3 km. If the CM numbers that
have
> > been experienced in other parts of the had riden through the tunnel,
traffic
> > could have been held up for 2 hours
>
> The largest ever CM ride in Melbourne was about 770 riders, so it would
have
> been silly to expect that there would be thousands flooding out of the woodwork last Friday
> (especially on a cold & maybe rainy night). So the
ride
> was never going to require more than 45mins of tunnel closure.

 

[Seth Jayson]

> has me using probenicid as the masking agent, and we all know that probenicid didn't do the trick
> for Stefano Garzelli last year.

Try the green Crayons instead...

sj

 

[David Sutton]

We don't put out press releases because (as you saw on Friday talkback radio) the main mentions we
get in the corporate media reports are slagging us off. Nor do we rely on asnyone to do our work for
us. We promote our rides through email lists, websites, independent media, thousands of leaflets on
bikes & in bike shops, hundreds of posters in bike shops & on bike paths, BUGs, bike clubs, student
media, student groups, environment groups, word of mouth... etc. You know, grass-roots ways of
networking rather than faxing off press releases which will either get ignored or lampooned.

> Dont put out press releases??? What sought of protest organisation are you, you are relying on the
> police and Vicroads to promote your ride?
>
>
> "David Sutton" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:BB25C264.62A4%[email protected]...
>>> Didnt critical mass provide press releases conveying what the group were going to do and wasn't
>>> the organisations aim to disrupt peak hour
> traffic
>>> through one of the main east exits from the city. Surely the RADIO JOCKS comments and reaction
>>> was what was expected by the Critical Mass. The
> abuse
>>> that followed is surely a result of the organisations actions.
>>
>> The only press releases put out were from the Police & CityLink. Critical Mass NEVER puts out
>> press releases. Not this time nor any time in the
> past.
>> Where did you get this info from?

<snip

 

[Zoot Katz]

Mon, 30 Jun 2003 01:00:22 GMT, <[email protected]>, [email protected]
(PC) wrote:

>As far as other cyclists are concerned, they can fight their own battles, bike paths for occasional
>users, wider footpaths, convex driveway mirrors and bike rights on footpaths for parents groups,
>rail trails for weekend riders etc.. Critical Mass is a road ride by nature, so I don't see how it
>can possibly be seen as a demand for bike paths..

True enough though there is a contingent among CM participants who would like to see bike lanes
everywhere there aren't bike paths. I disagree with them but they're entitled to their POV.
--
zk

 

[Pc]

On Sun, 29 Jun 2003 20:45:04 -0400, "Eric S. Sande" <[email protected]> wrote:

>>Of course, bikes should be allowed on the road. But that one fact is not something to build such a
>>zealous cult around. Why do you guys bother?
>
>Your problem, mate, is that you all ready surrendered.
>
>It is still an issue in America.

All that equal status really provides is a bit of protection and the occasional proscecution (after
the fact)..

A motorcycle instructor of mine once told me "it's not much use that you're the one in the right, if
you're the one in the ambulance"

That said, I do actually support integration, and I also support bike lanes, provided they're used
properly.. That means they should be used to give cyclists a safe hill climb lane here and there and
a few other situations where appropriate, but they shouldn't be treated as car door zone lanes and
installed wherever the local council or state authority wants to calm traffic..

As far as other cyclists are concerned, they can fight their own battles, bike paths for occasional
users, wider footpaths, convex driveway mirrors and bike rights on footpaths for parents groups,
rail trails for weekend riders etc.. Critical Mass is a road ride by nature, so I don't see how it
can possibly be seen as a demand for bike paths..

PC Melbourne, Australia

 

[Bill Hamilton]

"Eric S. Sande" <[email protected]> wrote in news:3EFF80C8.C9DAA475 @erols.com:

>>I've no problem with the agencies involved funding separate bike paths through the most traffic
>>addled parts of the city. Most people in my city don't, either.
>
> This is our basic disagreement. I'm totally against separate facilities, and I'll fight to the
> death against them. As I see it bicycles belong on the road and deserve equal status as
> vehicles in law.
>
> Any push to construct bicycle specific facilities is to ghettoize bicyclists and render us a
> subclass with regard to the roads.
>
> I can't accept that as a matter of public policy and I won't subscribe to it as a matter of local
> policy no matter what.
>

Wow. Great job here, generalizing things into "trails are evil". There is a difference between
"ghettoizing" bicyclists and moving bicyclists away from dangerous traffic.

So, in your "equal status" ideal world, are bicycles riding on the interstate system, next to 70+
MPH traffic? Or do you expect the cars to slow down to 15-20 MPH to match the speed of bicycles?
More than just bicycles are restricted from the interstates, as a matter of safety for everyone.

The point of trails isn't to marginalize cyclists. It's to allow the people who aren't comfortable
riding in the traffic to avoid it. You claim that bicycle rights is a black/white issue, where on
one side bicycles are just like all other vehicles but on the other they're nothing. You say there
is no middle ground. I say you're wrong. There's a wide variety of vehicles on the road, each with
their own restrictions and permissions.

Yes, bicycles belong on the roadway. But one of the advantages of bicycles that that they are not
_restricted_ to the roadway. They can go places that motor vehicles can't because of their smaller
size, lighter weight, and greater maneuverability. They can use rail trails that are far too narrow
for motor traffic to use safely. They can manage sidewalks among pedestrian traffic. Take away these
and other advantages, restrict them solely to roadways, and you end up with much fewer riders
(people who don't want to ride in traffic) and much less safe roadways (people who shouldn't be
riding in traffic are).

Bicycles should have a different status than cars, just as cars have a different status than heavy
trucks or motorcycles or scooters or dirtbikes or ATVs or whatever. Each has their place, and trying
to cram everything into a single category on a single road is going to ruin all of them. But not
before people who shouldn't die do.

-Bill Hamilton

 

[Eric S. Sande]

>All that equal status really provides is a bit of protection and the occasional proscecution (after
>the fact)..

In truth the Forester approach is a proven method that works well in the context of American
traffic, we haven't got anything that's better.

That is why we push it. If there is an Australian method that is better we would love to hear of it.

--

_______________________ALL AMIGA IN MY MIND_______________________ ------------------"Buddy Holly,
the Texas Elvis"------------------
__________306.350.357.38>>[email protected]__________

 

[Just A Cyclist]

"Rico X. Partay" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Buck wrote:
>
> > ...there is a big difference between protesting and disrupting.
>
> Often there is not.
>
> > Lobby all you want. Have petition drives. Put up signs. Have cycling programs for kids. Get the
> > transportation people to add more questions about bicycles on driver's exams. Work on stricter
> > penalties for injuring or killing a cyclist with a car. Do all of these things, but please,
> > don't jam up the roads in "protest."
>
> Protest doesn't need quotes around it. It is just that.
>
> > It does nothing to promote our rights to the road. But it certainly makes people mad.
>
> In other words, do whatever you want, just don't do anything that might actually get people's
> attention.
>
> > Personally, I don't want critical mass to be a reflection of me. They do not represent me. But
> > their actions reflect on cyclists as a whole.
>
> Tough problem. Either they're just criminals who should be busted, or their gripes are
> legitimate, in which case you'd want to lend them a hand. Let us know which way you decide
> to go.

My vote goes to CM as just criminals.......... I hate the back lash I get on my bike
because of CM....